Justice Carolyn Berger composed the decision for theen banc court. In her opinion, Berger ruled that the Chancery Court accurately applied laches because the case’s unusual circumstances made it difficult to apply the statute of limitations.
"The Court of Chancery did not decide whether O’Brien’s indemnification claim would have been barred by the statute of limitations," wrote Berger. "Rather, the trial court determined that this is one of those few cases where the analogous statute of limitations should not be applied because of ‘unusual conditions or extraordinary circumstances.’"
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
